so that i think is a huge challenge that we have to think about what is the best thing to do to deal with this issue and in terms of the phenomenon of how much is mexico investing if i am best bet correctly the migrations, one is the immigration we have a kind of

ins we used to have here that is issued in 2011 is an institution that deals with a border control and people that are living in mexico that would like to stay temporarily or permanently or with of the ministry to naturalize that want to become mexican. the same thing you have here. the challenge and the problem that they face is first, the southern border of mexico is shorter of course than the northern border, it's only a thousand kilometers but it is an extremely difficult geographic areas to control. you have the jungle, the rivers, mountains, and you have common border cities like in the u.s. and mexico that have a daily crossing with hundreds of thousands of people. then you have a big number of

regular points of crossing which mexico doesn't have near the sources or the enforcement authorities or the border patrol equivalent to control. so, what the mexican government does is to stop the people as long as they begin to go to mexico and i would like to raise for your attention one issue that hasn't fully valued and consider the mexicans implementing the law and return by more than a hundred thousand people that were coming to this and they were stopped and detained for the mexican immigration to sotheby's and return we have arranged to meet that returned in a safe and orderly manner per 100,001 year. last year it was less of course,

120,000 but still, all of them trying to get into the u.s.. so yes money is needed and training is needed, institutional building is needed and the issue a new legal framework that is a way of looking at migration. now i think the new administration of mexico has the opportunity to implement the law >> let me add quickly that there's a distinction in the removal or deportation in returning 750 return in mexico last part of the decade so the numbers are phenomenal looked at that consensus again in an odd way. people get excited but that hasn't changed so much that we are now actually using the mexican census to tell about the migration flow from a mexico which we didn't even do half a

dozen years ago so there is a lot of integration law and things like how we classify occupations and industries and the shared exercise with canada and mexico. the ways in which our government are involved from the oil exploration to borders. it's a phenomenal amount of integration. looking at the census in mexico it seems pretty clear that the removals are on things that may be generating some of the return but we don't know about the overlap. the survey doesn't -- it tells something. we don't know how effective the removal is an slowing things down. we just don't know. but the characteristics are different than the returnees. for civil committee tend to be a lot of family units and tens of thousands of u.s. citizen born children going back to mexico.

so it's a rather surprising picture in l.a.. >> i think we have a question in the middle. >> tell you what may be we will take three questions. you and you and then we will go to the next row down. >> thank you for your informative briefing on immigration. i just have a question on the mexican procedures for how they deal with immigrants coming out of cuba, north korea or other places that can't have a very positive relationships with the united states. >> hello. my name is jose and i wanted to

ask about the remittances in the immigration issue. now with better technology is much easier to compare the methods of sending back to mexico did you think that this grant increase the long-term workers or if the terms shorter i would like to hear your thoughts. >> - jordan and my question is primarily for the doctor mohar. why do you believe this intention and policy wise right now towards liberalizing the low-skilled users something that could solve a lot of the border security and illegal immigration problems the we currently see. >> thank you for the question about north korea.

i haven't seen the north koreans in mexico, ever. [laughter] we do have a flow of cubans that pick up and go down. some years ago we experience the increase in the cubin flows through the yucatan coming over the midwest and a complicated trafficking scheme, people in the u.s., people in the island and mexico trying to get these people through mexico. the procedure -- we have an agreement with cuba, we have a migratory agreement with cuba, different than the one that you have but it's the response to try to present to the to prevent things from continuing because it created a lot of violence in mexico and we began to face issues of crime between the traffickers and the cubin mafia

and so we started discussions with the cuban government and we had bilateral agreement, the government has a bilateral agreement in which it has two or three interesting points for you. one of them as there is now in agreement cuba what take back some of the people that we have in our control under certain conditions and interviews by the consulate of cuba and mexico they agree to send them back which is something that wasn't the case with cuba for many, many years which as you know once you left cuba you can't go back. in this case, one relatively important percentage are sent back to cuba. the others -- and we have a huge issue, the cuban adjustment act that the u.s. has, they are coming to mexico basically to

the 99% are trying to get it to the u.s. so they know as far as they are able to touch the u.s. land, they are immediately welcomed and received. so, the challenge is for mexico because some of them are not in cuba and so many of them, all of them can be accepted in the u.s. if they are able to get into the u.s.. so we have talked for some years of the cubans trying to get into mexico. the numbers have arrived a little bit because now the policy of the visas so they are going to ecuador and begin to make their journey into axson co and central america and once they are in mexico, the only thing they want to know is that government needs them to continue and the regional paso

so it is something that has to be carefully thought about in the u.s. with mexico and eventually with cuba because it could become a big issue in the next year's. thank you. >> duraid briefly comment on the remittances. it is a very complicated and very relevant issue as you know because the remittances to mexico are not the million dollars per year so it is a huge income for several hundreds of thousands of families in mexico, remittances that are usually small amounts, but unfortunately many families still live on remittances that they see from their parents or some sort of husbands in the u.s.. how did the recession affect those? it's a curious phenomenon because even though the amount

of remittances or alternately lower, the families were even more than they used to receive so they didn't suffer the impact. at the same time, what happens long-term when you have a population like the mexicans here that could eventually decide to stay, largely the family begins to break the ties with the origin and the remittances begin to go down. so because of the number of people involved, we have had several years and putting last year's report still talks about the internet tends to mexico said it is huge and i think that regardless of what happens here, it ties them to be an important source of income for those families. and finally, that's it.

thank you. >> i think gustavo answer the question very well. clearly things are getting more complicated. 20 years ago a lot of remittances get counted in different ways, so in the past was worker remittances. they carried the money back with that and i think some of that might change. it's one of the inducements for the temporary worker programs is you kind of use that as a mechanism for people getting money back to hold them until they do return and it's an important point to what extent does the electronic remittance change the game and being able to manage it in that way. but white we have a problem liberalizing the low-skilled visa? lots of reasons. the unions have traditionally not been favorably disposed of the idea. i think correctly see the worker programs present a challenge to the workers they represent. that is a 200 year old position that isn't unique in any sense. what is unique is the seems to be changing of all that, so

recently the unions are considering things like unemployment data to trigger changes in the take on commissions which would change the volume of migration on the shortages or demand so unions may come around but there's a whole block of lobbyists that don't like the idea of the work programs of the sort that we can amnesty but truly removing. the other reason it is difficult is because how do you assess the shortage? the idea is that the workers need agriculture and it went from 90% to about 10% in years so that was supposed to induce shortages. they released a program to the welcome they didn't do it because they couldn't send shortages. assessing shortages is a very difficult thing to do. especially if you buy like i do

the anclote culture reducing technology and a lot of ways that is pushing non-words the demand for labor to is if you bring in labor and you push on wages which doesn't help people in those sectors especially those that might want to unionize the sector. but as for liberalizing, let's again go back to the numbers because people haven't got their heads wrapped around it. we see today about 140,000 legal, permanent emissions of the migrants to mexico on an annual basis. again we bring in about 150,000 temporary workers annually. we are in a position now we have very little slow on the relative basis on the international basis 50% of the agriculture is authorized in the united states. how do you do that? how do you run a program, so for example boesh changed the visa mechanisms he changed the wage standard and that led to an increased demand.

it said administration tightened up the wage and changed some of the admission standards and that's probably ratcheted things down but what do you mean by liberalizing? what it really means is addressing the difficulties that employers have in the program white housing, quality of housing, transportation, wage standards, crites, getting the package right so that employers will use these and not undermine the market. it is a remarkably tough thing to do which is why for example president obama i think rightly puts in the labor law enforcement along with the work site enforcement. these things are very difficult to manage and finally, again, given the argument for why we need the bilateral management, one of the reasons mexico's jargon cultural program of canada has worked is that it's been tough loved. they basically singled of married men, which ups the

likelihood that it is going to return. they've also got to the mexican government involved so if you do not return coming you don't qualify to re-enter the candidate to work again. i don't see the u.s. putting this kind of practices and to place. that is another reason that it's difficult to basically liberalize programs because the intent of the temporary program is people will return. getting that to happen is a system of challenge. >> i'm sorry to announce we have almost come to the end of our time here. but we do have just a couple of minutes for one last question. so, we could take one from this side of the aisle and i would be it. afterwards, i invite you to come forward and talk personally with our guests this morning. and i'm sure that they would be more than willing to answer your questions. please, go ahead. >> select my name is maria from

th is maria from the spanish embassy. i appreciate all of these presidents coming from the country where we are having the immigration problems and the recession problems that make immigration go up and down. of what to ask if he could elaborate a bit more about the immigration from central america to mexico. i would like to know most of them go to mexico just coming to the states or some of them are you need to go there legally to work. >> thank you for the question. particularly the have been going to mexico for a temporary worker

particularly to the coffee plantations and banana plantations in the southeast of mexico and this has a historic tradition that literally 100,000 people per year, the family's move to pick up the coffee and banana and then they go after roots that used to be that they just a loud and now they have established the visas that puts the employer with a clear obligations with these workers and then also the government issue of with this kind of a temporary border crossing in mexico and the work in mexico to 100 kilometers and then they go back to their places of origin. as we have also is abolished

legalizing the flow of the border region. but what i was referring to is that we have an experience in the last two years and regardless of the recession in the u.s. is they're trying to get stila into the u.s. because the conditions have deteriorated so much because of the lack of opportunities and because of violence, and the violence that people are fleeing because of security reasons. and then they are finding that in some regions in mexico the confined the job either to stay or at least earn some money to continue returning to the north. so it is a new phenomenon but

they are staying in the state which began to create the challenge for the local authorities to see what they can do with this population because they are also low-skilled workers subject to a lot of exploitation that are beginning to see it as an option they are facing in their country. that is why i think central america is demanding attention of the international community particularly for mexico of course and the u.s. and colombia in the region to try to go to central america with a more comprehensive just controlling the flows of people but trying to do international cooperation systemically to enhance the institutions, law and order and economic development and particularly those three places.

>> i think we've come to the conclusion of the session and i want to thank you especially gustavo mohar who's come from mexico city to be with us this morning and also dr. lindsay lowell from georgetown university. glad that you could make the session this morning. if you would like to talk with either of the gentleman further, please come forward after we close. please join me in a round of applause for the guests. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

his guilty plea today could bring him between 46 to 57 months in prison under a plea deal with prosecutors. the democrat told the judge that he was waiving his right to trial saying he had no interest and wasting the taxpayers' time or money. sentencing is set for june. his wife has also agreed to plead guilty to a charge of filing false joint federal income tax returns.

john kerry leaves sunday for his first overseas trip as secretary of state. he starts off in europe visiting london, berlin, paris and rome which is expected to meet with leaders from the syrian opposition. secretary then goes to the middle east, stopping in five countries he isn't visiting israel or the palestinian territories. earlier today he gave what is billed as the first major foreign policy address as the secretary of state. topics he touched on climate change and the automatic spending cuts set to take effect march 1st. >> from returning from vietnam he knew that the value of sharing hour promised values bore fruit in the long run in the future. he said having people who understand your thoughts, she said is much greater security

than other submarine. let me be very clear foreign assistance is not a giveaway. it's not charity. it is an investment in a strong america and in the free world. foreign assistance lifts other people love and then reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common endeavors. and when we help others crackdown on corruption, that makes it easier for our own compliance against corruption, and it makes it easier for our companies to do business as well. when we join with other nations to reduce the nuclear threat, we build partnerships suite of have to fight those battles alone. this includes working with our partners around the world in making sure that iran never attains a weapon that would endanger our allies and our interests. when we help others create the space that they need to build stability in their own communities, we are actually helping brave people build a

better more space future, and making sure that we don't pay more than they did in american blood and treasure to the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for american values intersect powerfully in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to leave on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors. we as a nation must have the foresight and the courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren, and that is an environment not ravaged by the seas, deadly superstores, is devastating droughts and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. president obama is committed to moving forward on that and so am i. and so must you be ready to join us in that effort. [applause]

can we all say thank you to the signers. [applause] so, think about all these things that i've listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we are all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our plan at. when we work with others large and small to develop and deploy the queen technologies that will power the new world, and they are there waiting for us, 6 trillion-dollar market, huge amounts of jobs.

when we do that, we know we are helping create the new markets and opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so that we can succeed in the next great revolution in the marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to doing the smart things and the right things and to truly take on this challenge because if we don't rise, then rising temperatures and a rising sea levels will surely lead to rising trusts. now ask any insurance company in america if we waste this opportunity it may be the only thing our generation coming generations are remembered for. we need to find the courage to leave a different legacy. we cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our plan at without also talking about the unprecedented changes in its population. another great opportunity in our

fingertips in the country's across north africa and the middle east, the majority of people are younger than 30-years-old. 60% of them are under 30, 50% under 21, 40% under 18. about half the total under 20. and you know what? they seek the same opportunities and the same things that you do come opportunity to read we have an interest in helping these young people to develop the skills they need to compete the mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies so that they can start contributing their communities and to rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist or some other type of extremist activity. for the first time in human history, young people are around the world act as a global covert including many of the people in this room who are more open-minded and more proficient in the technology that keeps them connected in a way that no generation in history has ever

been before. we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable network and a positive way. some may say not now, not while we have our budget. well believe me, my friends, these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it's more convenient. it's not easy. but responding is the american thing to do. and i will tell you it's worth it. our relatively small investment in these programs which advance peace, security and stability around the world which help american companies compete abroad which create jobs here at home by opening new markets to american goods would support

american citizens abroad and help them when they needed the most which prospers the civil societies and save lives by fighting disease and hunger which defended the universal rights of all people in advance freedom and dignity and development around the world, which bring people together, nations together and forge partnerships to address problems that transcend the separations of oceans and borders on land. which protect the planet. citizens, our investment in all of those things cost us as i just mentioned about 1 penny of every dollar that we invest. america, you will not find a better deal anywhere. and i am particularly aware that in many ways the greatest challenge to america's foreign policy today is in the hands not

of diplomats but of policy makers in congress. it is often said that we cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world. but in these days of the looming budget sequester that everyone actually wants to delay of way or most, we cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries create order is the strongest when america at last put its own fiscal house in order, and that has to be now to the [applause]

>> if it is the principal naval strategy of the northern state, the principal naval strategy of the southern state is commerce rate, one done on that have it right there between the mass, but again if you are going after the merchant ships one is all you need. if you caught the ship, the idea was, along side and put a price on the board, take it to the port where the judge could at adjudicated, sell it at the auction and you've got to keep all of the money. but of course because they depend entirely on the profit motive, the ship owner paid the men and the ship itself the

supplies of food, hires the officers he expects a return on his money and the crew expected prize money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned and then sold, you cannot make a profit on the private hearing. therefore the confederate private peering died out almost immediately to the last about three months slightly younger. the maritime entrepreneur is found out they could make more money blockade running. >> it is the communism name these days and preserved the power of the members of the communist party but they basically through most of the ideology aside when he opened the country up and it's now become a capitalist haven.

they talked at great length about marxist leninism etc. that as i said it's all about preserving the party power economically as the country continues to grow because they threw aside most vestiges of communism a long time ago. and north korea it is all about preserving the power of the military and the kim dynasty as you have. again it has nothing to do with i think what karl marx envisioned as communism way back. someone could do a fascinating book on how communism move into asia and diverged into something different in vietnam, cambodia, north korea, then it appeared in europe and the eastern european countries and said that is a fascinating slid that occurred. >> the now harvard fellow keith richard and 34 years of reporting and insight from around the world sunday at eight on c-span q&a.

former federal communications commission share richard wiley spoke recently about how the fcc policies played a role in the future of the internet. he was chairman from 1974 to 1977. in this one hour and 20 minute discussion, he talked about wireless spectrum and broadcast ownership rules. moderating the institute discussion is herald, former commissioner. >> welcome to the session on the center for the economics of the internet. it's our great pleasure today to have with us chairman richard wiley formerly of the federal communications commission. just a couple of brief housekeeping notes before we get started. if you have questions today than you would like to submit over twitter, it's hudsoninstitute

and hash tag are fcc policy or future fcc. as we go through to this program we will be very happy to accept questions submitted over twitter. we also would like to welcome the c-span audience today. we are very pleased to have c-span cover this event and the guests today, as a great deal about the evolution of c-span that over time has appeared many times. for those of you in the audience, there is a printed the bio of mr. wiley and for those of you on c-span or watching on the web coverage, i invite you to go to the law firm, wiley

rine.com. it's quite extraordinary. i will simply say that mr. wiley is known to everyone as the dean of communications law in the united states and perhaps in the world. he is both gracious and graceful. he's been wonderful friends throughout the years and if you want to know anything about what is going on in the communications sector, he is like the good person to ask and we're very pleased to have him join us at the center today for what i'm sure will be a lively discussion. we are going to talk up the current fcc and the future of the fcc and there is no better topic to lead off with them as called the rumored changes at the head of the fcc.

would you like to comment on what the latest rumors are? >> first of all it's nice to be with you. as always i've always enjoyed my relationship with you here at the hudson institute and thank you very much for being here and c-span as well. i've heard the same rumors that you have heard and i think they are out there that perhaps the chairman might lead at some point in the future. i don't know if they're true. i don't have any inside information on that. i think the reason you hear those is because the communication is such an important aspect of our economy and of our life. the fcc obviously regulates the communications by wire and radio wave so it's a very important agency, a lot more so than when i was there and even when you were there and to the credit of the chairman there's been a lot of activity going on, so people

are concerned that you have a change in leadership and what i could manage the commission and the pending providence. the chairman has been very helpful in the world and field promoting propaganda and high-speed internet access if you will and promoting the reform of the universal service fund and also the spectrum auctions matter which i'm sure we may talk about in the future. we are not going to have a change in administrations, have the republican coming in to take his place if he were to leave we would have somebody who presumably would have some of the same philosophy he might have but nonetheless, what he or she have different views for some different initiatives of different prerogatives we don't know. so if i have a pending matter and by the way everything we will talk about i probably

involved in have clients involved in so i am concerned about it chairman genachowski were to leave and hopefully that isn't going to happen, but it could. >> are there any names that you are hearing about potential replacements? >> other than you and me probably about everybody else that's out there but you do here a lot of good names, people who have been veterans of the commission in the past or past communications activities country existing commissioners, commissioner clyburn, larry strickland is the head of the administration and the bill was the head of the media bureau. they've all been very competent and get people to work with if the chairman decides to leave,

and i don't want to spread the rumor that he is leaving because i don't honestly know. >> hypothetically if the chairman were to leave, or just based on your experience watching the commission over the years, what is the usual time frame between wim the chairman announces that he's leaving and when you have a new chairman in place? it takes months i look at it as the center of the universe, but you know, even in an ongoing administration such as the obama administration there's a lot of appointments and we have seen cabinet officials how long it takes to get them in there for very likely to have an interim if the chairman were to leave i would think one of the existing commissioners would be serving in his place for one would think of to six months or maybe longer. he can in one time and took

almost a year in the clinton administration if you recall that period of time. so, we may be under a different watch for a while of the chairman were to. >> you've watched the commission over the years. how would you characterize some of the changes that have gone on in just how the commission operates in the relationship among the tension how would you characterize the change of the commission over the past ten, 20 years? >> as far as collegiality goes it does vary between the administration and between i think the chairman who set the stage. i think to his credit the commissioners while they are quite split on their philosophy, there - three philosophy i think they all get along personally well and it's to their credit.

i don't see any major sports that way. i think if people seem to -- they are adults over there and i think that is relatively good. i do see a lot of differences the commission and by regulated and the one today in the sense of the communications have become so important and you do have the open meeting and they are not able to talk. you can't have a majority of the commissioners' meeting together, and i think that's unfortunate so you see a lot of it being done by the staff. i'm all for openness and transparency but i think it would be good if these people could meet and talk together and understand each other a little bit better than they do. also, there's been a change from a remarkable change starting in the clinton administration, and

that is that the minority commissioners, republicans in those casar those appointments are made by the hill. the president makes them but they are looked to the hill and in the old days you tended to have the president make all of the appointments live is the chairman i would call about possible democratic appointment so you tend to get people who were a little closer in their philosophy. today i think you have pretty wide disparity between the commissioners and their viewpoints. republicans tend to be more market oriented and democrats on the other side of the aisle. they are all right thinking people that they have strong differences in that regard. i don't think that was so true when i was the chairman. i had many back in the old days i had so many democrats were probably more conservative than

i was. >> to think of a name or to. >> jimenez was appointed four times in the democratic commissioned by the different republican presidents was very, very conservative. >> you mentioned the open meeting rule and i heard up rumors about possible legislation to address that. >> you hear that all the time that it's hard to be against openness. what i would like to see is some possibility of the commissioners getting together for non-decision discussions at least to kind of frame the issues and work of some of the differences and understand how their colleagues feel about it. i think that would be an advancement. i am not sure it's going to happen because when push comes to shove it sounds like you are voting to keep somebody from nebraska from coming in to see what's going on at the commission when really it's probably people like myself over their watching those meetings

and people are up to date on what's going on at the commission. nonetheless, openness is a good concept. i would just try to be a little flexible. >> i would say on a personal note i think i'm the only person in washington who actually likes those rules and it might have been my personal experience there. >> i was there under both and it changed during my chairmanship, so i can remember what it was like. the meetings were very interactive. the staff would be sitting out in the audience just like this one and would be interacting with the commissioner who really had to go prepare at the meetings, and it was, you know, very ad hoc and very intellectually stimulating. today as i see the commission meetings they are very scripted. everybody makes their little statements and they are good statements, but nonetheless i would rather see more interaction and so what i always

wait for as the press conference after the meeting when you actually have somebody responding to reporters' questions and some of the reporters here are nodding. i think they know what i'm talking about. but this is the system that we've got and so you live with it. >> i agree with you they are very scripted reporters and the bureau. let's move on to some of the issues before the commission, and i'm going to start with an issue that was there when i was at the commission and was there when you were at the commission and will probably be here 50 years from now and that is media ownership. why do we still have these rolls? >> first of all we have to say what they are not the broadcast ownership rules for some of the people out there in the audience perhaps in the c-span audience to really control how many stations any one entity can have in the market whether the

stations broadcast in the television or radio can be with a newspaper they've been around for a long time and i put in in 1975 by commission put in the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule and at that time we thought newspapers might dominate the assisting and developing television industry and of course that's pretty ridiculous by today's standards they've had a great economic concerns in this country and yet provide i think a very important service. so you know, i think that rule was greatly outmoded. we have them i think because there's a lot of authority. it's hard to get rid of rules and it's easier to put them in. one thing i learned today constituencies go about them and there's a lot of people out

there that want to regulate broadcasting and it is the one industry in the media that is regulated and the one industry that has the most economic marketplace problems today. after all, broadcasting is largely a one channel service. when we talk about digital television they've been able to have some multiple channels, but only two or three perhaps and i think broadcasting is primarily advertising supporting and we will go into the fact that they've actually created a second stream of revenue in some instances, but that is compared to multichannel subscription oriented services like cable and satellite and now the telephone industry. broadcasting has its troubles out there and i think that they could really stand a dose of deregulation. the congress in 1996 decided to

mandate the commission and the 1996 communications act mandated the commission to look at its existing rules every four years to determine whether those rules are still necessary in the public interest. and so the commission it was originally two years and now its quadrennial reviews. the commission moves very slowly in those quadrennial reviews, for example it is now working in 2010 quadrennial review and this is 2013. i need not remind use of the have to get started by 2010 they got around to starting at and then it struggles through and we can talk about the details of that, but it's a very slow process and there are constituencies, there are a lot of people concerned about consolidation but on the commission and of the commission and therefore it's tough to get the rules changed.

plus, there is a first circuit court of appeals that for nine years has really had the authority and the jurisdiction over the commission's handling of the rules. they've been very critical of the commission's reasoning in its efforts to change the rules. and the last quadrennial refused the commission has got to get any changes through, any deregulatory changes through which i think is a shame. currently the fought by the chairman has been to eliminate the newspaper radio world. i want to say again i have clients in this area. i represent the newspaper association of america and a lot of broadcast stations so my views should be looked at in this context. these are my personal views. i think would be great to have a journalistic tradition more news and local affairs, you know, available to radio stations, and

i think there would be good for a newspaper to be a radio station, and by the way i don't think there would be a huge outpouring of transactions if that rule were to change. i don't think that it can be truly justified today even those of third circuit has said in a blanket prescription on the newspaper broadcast ownership doesn't make sense anymore but they happen as i said the critical of the fcc is tempted to change the rules. as of, get rid of newspaper radio. it would be the one proposal that was made also to basically a allow the ownership in the top 20 markets of the country or some finite details the i won't bore the audience with. that's been the will since 2008 and was again upset by the third

circuit but i think the commission recently it's here in the tribune bankruptcy which has major interests in the top 20 markets to allow them to continue in that regard. so i think the commission would propose that change. well people have come out of the woodwork to say that is going to end the western civilization as we know it. i don't think so. i think it would be very good and i think it should go beyond that. another rule is duopoly. it's very hard to have two television stations in the same market under the commission's rules because you can't own a two of the top four and you have to have at least eight independent stations out there in any duopoly and any transactions that occur. that means in the smaller middle sized markets where broadcasters are hurting it's very difficult to have those transactions

occur. i think it is a shame as a result of that what has happened is broadcasters have found ways to develop i think transactions that could get around the rules so to speak. maybe that's not the right to say it, but at least be justified within the current rules. that is one station might provide advertising, sell advertising for weaker station or they might provide a backroom support for the so-called joint sales agreements or shared services agreements. the commission recently in its proposal is i think going to try to crack down on the joint sales agreements in television as they have and radio. i think that is too bad. i think those agreements have helped to bring news into the smaller markets where the

stations haven't gotten the resources financially to provide that news, and i personally would like to see those continue and certainly the shared services agreement which the commission doesn't have a proposal on currently continue. also like to frankly have duopoly allow them to occur. so if the changes are needed in these rules and i hope they occur. i am dubious about that. this chairman hasn't had i think it's fair to say a lot of emphasis on media interest. he hasn't made these proposals and i don't know whether he's going to follow through on them. the commission at some point us to put a fenech on the 2010 in order to get start to the time to start on the 2010 quadrennial that is going to be coming along. so, i hope the -- i think it

would help broadcasting to be stronger to the broadcasting is still an important service. you look at what happened in sandy when a lot of the mobile towers field and the broadcasting was able to get through. when tornadoes are coming, people watch their broadcast stations. local news is still very important. if you look at the entertainment programs that are provided by broadcasters in the mobile devices if. so broadcasting is still the service that i think is worthwhile that is maintaining in this country and i don't think the sec disagrees with that and people can agree on and the commission is what. i think some of the democratic commissioners have more problems with them, more problematic from

their standpoint. let's talk about the media ownership reviews when you were the chairman you might start a proceeding and could possibly have been completed in six to nine months. when i was on the commission we had media ownership previous reviews from start to finish there were no more than 12 and from the outside 18 months. today uniquely for the media ownership reviews. we don't do this for any of the type of very rarely for any other proceedings there seems to be in the past decade. why is media ownership preview treated differently and perhaps

and the proceedings go on for three or four years if they ever get completed all. >> the wheels grind slowly. you know that on any process and any type of issue and number two, broadcasting is important and there are people out there that care about and people that object changes in the broadcast regulations because they think it's important. and i say this i think this country has low minority ownership of broadcast stations. i think that's too bad. i agree with some of the concerns people have in that regard. before the eg tater programs, which stronger stations help the minorities get started. i was favorable of the tax certificate and what you could get on the tax deferment.

i would like to see more ownership and the access to capital. i can't own a television station in all due respect. i don't have the capitol to do it, and i think a lot of minorities and a lot of average people can't own a television station and physics limit the number of stations that you can have in a marketplace. so given the fact there are fewer stations then people would like to have, it means that when you come to take up these issues they become very tortured, very controversial and there's a constituency out there that is going to lobby the commission. by the way, congress gets into the act in a very big way. writing to the commission, telling the commission don't make any changes in these rules, and i think there for it's been almost impossible to get changes

through. .. now we have digital television. what you tell us a bit about possible new standards. >> okay. you know, the standards that many of the folks and certainly myself grope with, so called in tnc standards were set way back in 1941, if you can believe that, and it was colorize to

1954. in the 80's, late 80's that was asked by the chairman of the sec to have at the federal advisory committee to look into the idea of advanced television, so-called high-definition television. we did not talk about digital in those days. digital transmission of broadcast signals was really not conceived of in the 80's or at least was not feasible. and so our committee started out to try to develop a new television standard. that was being worked on in japan and in western europe. i saw high-definition television for the first time in seeing some of their efforts, which were quite noteworthy, but they were analog. there were the older transmission. there were not the transmission of computers in the digital transmission. our advisory committee with private-sector orientation, reported to the sec, but my view was to look for the best in technology. we started an international competition to pick any standard

, and we had an editing come forth with digital transmission as a possibility. general instrument of in california, and many of the other entities seeing that and perceiving that it was feasible and that it would be a better signal came in and changed their analog systems to digital. we tested the systems under very objective standards in a laboratory that had been built in alexandria, virginia. this took many years, and there were six systems, seven systems tested including the japanese analog system in the american digital systems tested better. after the tests were over in the early 90's the digital systems had developed a sort of on the fly. i give them a choice of either improving their systems, the basis of the new standard or may

be getting together and having as single best of the best elements system, so-called grand alliance, and that's what happened. to make a long story short all the digital systems get together, form a single system. it was built, tested by us again. take another couple of years. finally in 1995 after nine years of work by our vice committee we recommended a standard which the fcc essentially adopted. that standard was put in. took another ten years for the united states to transition over digital because we could not disrupt the existing analog system. we give every broadcaster to channels. you remember. you could watch your analog and then some of them were beginning to do digital. on a different channel. most all of these stations had converted. there are some low-power stations that had not converted.

we have a digital standard coming. a lot of confusion. i think consumers were a little uncertain as to how to get the new digital channels to reach in their television sets. that is pretty much behind us. just as we got through this, guess what is happening now? the idea of maybe another scanner because technology moves so much faster. when that going to have 50 or 60 years of this standard, no matter how good it is. you all have high-definition sets. i have one that hangs on my wall which was always my dream, to have all wide-screen system. my wife did not want a great big box sitting in the living room. so having it on the wall, it had been great, i think, for sports and for entertainment and news, of the local stations are doing their hd, their news in hd. it was wonderful. now we're coming to the idea of older high-definition.

and also, to have a new standard that might have greater throughput in order to provide not only broadcasting but maybe broadcasting to mobile and hand-held devices because what we are realizing is, people want communication. they want to receive programming where they are when they wanted to. so a lot of younger people are watching -- they are getting their news. they're watching their programs carrying it on their iphones and that is the world we live in. so i think in the next five to ten years, i can't predict how soon it will be, we will have possibly another standard. it will have to be worked out. and, you know, that, i think, will give much more, i think -- make the whole availability of digital bits much more broad and

i think it will give the united states and the world, indeed, many more video and digital services, which is going to be good. but, if that happens it is probably not going to be back for compatible, that is, we're all going to have to go out and buy new sets. and so therefore, i don't think it's going to come as fast as some of the technologists are saying. some of the engineers are telling me will be five years. i would say will be toward the end of the 10-year cycle because we just can not disrupt american viewing habits, and we're not all going to want to go out and spend another thousand dollars or $500 or wherever it's going to cost on a big set. but, when people see, as i have seen, ultra high-definition television, we were just talking about it earlier today, it is really spectacular. it is an experimental way, but i saw hdtv that way and there is always something better comes along. that is one of the great things about electronic communications

and is a communications. there is always going to be something better and you have to be willing to go with technology . and to allow the best to be available to the country. so it's going to happen. and maybe if this had happened to timing in life is everything. if we had had this happening maybe you would not have to go through this laborious spectrum auction. but that is not going to be the case because it's a decade away, as they say. >> well, why don't we move on to the spectrum auction. the commission has proposed rulemaking that the issue last fall for the new spectrum auction consistent with the statutory authority for congress to hold such an auction. have you see that playing out? what do you see is the timeline for what an auction is actually likely to take place? >> at think it will be a very complex proceeding. basically what we're talking about is the fcc developed, to its credit, by the way, the

national broadband plan for the country. and that plan called for 500 mhz of spectrum to be made available for mobile wireless. and given the explosion in tablets and mobile smart phones, i mean, i think that was certainly something that we all recognized and maybe had to be done. and one part of it was 120 mhz would come from broadcasting. and it -- so, congress followed through and past the spectrum auction statute, and i relies, basically, on voluntary participation by broadcasters. nobody is forcing broadcasters to go on a business, but it does give broadcasters three options. number one, they can turn in their license and be paid for it. number two, they can share a license. for example, to public broadcast

asians struggling to be able said stay in business because it's always difficult for them, to smaller stations struggling would get together, share a channel, and make the other channel available in the auction and get paid for it. the third way would be to move from uhf band to edge higher part of the frequency down into the bhf which is less favored in digital television. quite the reverse, by the way, in the old analog. of the was the gold standard in the you was not so good. it's quite reversed. the way the technology works out. and be paid for it is well. it remains to be seen whether enough broadcasters are going to participate. the fcc will get that 120 mhz. i pretend to be a little skeptical about it. i think it will be less than that. i can't tell you how many. there have been some broadcast groups that say they do want to

participate. others are keeping their powder dry. you won't know until the spectrum auction really begins to is going to get out there. we just have to wait and see. but the broadcasters that do not participate with the big, strong broadcasters that exist, what is their concern? and me, you could say this auction is a benefit to them because it's going to take away some of the competition. you know, some of the weaker stations that moving into the auction will no longer be there. their problem this a concept called a meatpacking because we want to create nationwide spectrum dance for the mobile services. we may have to move broadcast television stations once again. we just move them. timing again is everything in life. we just move them in 2006 for the digital transmission.

it is too bad we could not have done this all together, but technology does not work that way. public policy does not work that way, sort going to have to move them again, i'd been confusing the public. some of these stations will have to be repacked and moved to a new area. there will be compensated for it , hopefully. congress has set aside one and three-quarters billion to pay for the broadcasters that have to move. it's costly to do that, changing their antenna and what have you. move to a new location. so we will see how it works out. it is a very complex spectrum auction that the commission compass -- contemplates. for the first time throughout history it is going to have a forward-looking auction and the reverse auction going on at the same time. and they will have consecutive rounds in which broadcasters will be asked, will you sell your station for this amount? and there will say, yes. then there will move it down one and say, will you sell it for

this? yes. and then we sell it for this? no. they move out. meanwhile, the wireless guys will be asking, will you pay this much? and those are both going on together. and nobody knows, you know, how this will work out. i give the commission a lot of credit for attempting this, to carry on what congress asked for. another is a lot of concern on the part of broadcasting. there's also concern in the wireless community as to whether they will get in the spectrum. by the way, where's the rest of the spectrum coming from? well, it is coming from government, but there has been reluctance by some of our big departments. you know, we don't want to take the spectrum away from the defense department's or from the justice department because they're using it for very important services. the in cia said maybe we can share spectrum, but a lot of mobile providers are dubious about that. so it still remains to be seen whether the 500 mhz, if that is

even the right number. your nose. if that number will ever be achieved. but i think the spectrum auction is probably going to take longer than most people think. i know the sec is working hard at it. really, the sec has turned into the federal auction commission. and they have so many people working on this. it is so complex, but it is certainly a good effort. that is one reason people worry about it. the new chairman coming in. would he or she have the same initiatives or want to do it the same way? no one knows for sure. i think the spectrum auction is going to be -- it is really going to be very compelling. and i have to say this to my broadcast friends, i represent many of them. i think the idea of a spectrum shortage, spectrum need is out there. it's a reality. you just look at the explosion

of mobile service. you see what, again, to go back to what i was saying before, people getting their communications and immobile, and held area. another is going to be more and more demand for what the chairman has called the oxygen spectrum requirements. >> you mentioned a couple of complexities. just the complexity of the auction itself. the repackaging and relocation of towers. there are many others that seem to be challenges for this auction, such as international boundary considerations. >> that's a big one. that is a big one. >> how much spectrum will be set aside, if any, for unlicensed? what will happen with public safety? how will they get their money and of this? to you see all of these getting addressed in one set of rules or do you think there will be a series of rules that will address these overtime?

>> i think the broad band planned spot off. you know, many multiple rulemaking for the commission to consider. you mentioned, though, the border situation with canada and mexico. i mean, that is yet to be worked out. in one study is a detroit would end up with the television stations. and that can't be. obviously. so that is a real struggle for the commission to figure out how to do that. my experience, working down the digital television thing, you know, the problems in working both north and south of the border are immense. they have their own systems. they have their own process these. they are important for them to sit out there and make sure their public is served, and so, you know, i think this is still a problem to be worked out. and public safety, the commission is developing and has set aside spectrum, the ncaa has

now administrated the public new networks to deal with things like katrina, like september 11th. so our equipment will all work together, fire can reach the police and reach the safety organizations, security forces and the spectrum will all -- i mean, the equipment will all work together. i think that is very, very important. you mentioned one other. i can't recall. >> whether there would be any set aside for licenses. >> and licenses is important. the fcc has already adopted rules that will allow, you know, the use of unlicensed devices in the existing broadcast ban through the wonders of technology, digital technology. that is possible. some people are talking about also unlicensed operations in the guard bands between the new

spectrum auction between wireless and broadcasting. you may have seen the washington post editorial today on that very issue. keep in mind, the statute requires that the guard bands be no more wide than it is technically necessary. so there is a limit, probably, to how much wi-fi and on lices devices you can put into those guard bands. i'm not sure that we are going to see huge nationwide wi-fi systems developed for free because, keep in mind, everyone is going to have to build up the systems. are they going to want to charge and get a value for them. so i think all of this is yet to be worked out. we will be working on this for years to see how this develops. it is all to the good in one sense that, again, we want to try to serve the country with the best of technology.

>> americas watch television, either through cable or satellite. the commission has had a proceeding for couple of years now the, the transmission. it does not -- it has not gone very far, but it is a continuing issue that the commission -- and where d.c. retransmission? >> let me explain what reach transmission consent the "herald" asked about, what we're really talking about. twenty years ago the congress decided to pass a statute that allowed broadcasters to get some value for their programming from what are called mvp dees, multi channel video program distributors. essentially cable and satellite. and so today under that statute every three years broadcasters have a choice. they can either insist on it must carry requiring of in the

pds to must carry there signal under certain limitations or they can try to bargain or what is called retransmission consent. i will allow you to carry my signal on the broadcaster if you pay me something for it. for a number of years broadcasters did not get any money from cable or satellite. they got some additional channels. as for use cms nbc and aztecs had things like that. those were channels that cable bargained with the broadcasters for. but in the last six, seven years there started to be many said -- money changing hands and it has become a very important second stream of income for broadcasters. a growing importance dream. now, some people are concerned about that because what happens is when you come down at the very end of a three year timeframe or whenever the agreement is with cable, the

broadcaster says, i want to so many cents per prescribed for what program or you cannot carry it. cable says, not going to give you that much. they don't agree. and then, the signal might be pulled. i would be able to watch my favorite program or i might miss the super bowl or something like that. and you have occasionally service interruptions. in my own view the statute has worked exactly as congress intended it. keep in mind, i represented many broadcasters involved in retransmission consent agreements. my views have to be taken into that consideration. and why has it were? because both sides have something to gain and both sides have something to lose. broadcasters need the coverage that cable and satellite provide . cable and satellite want the broadcast. they would not be paying for it if it did not have a value.

and your cable system or your satellite system, you are watching broadcast programming on it. you may not be actually watching in over the air. only about 13 percent of the country is watching broadcasting of a year, but they're still watching the broadcast programming. so the parties have an incentive to get together. sometimes, as i say, service interruptions happen. congress goes crazy when that happens. and so there's a problem. but i think it's working. but in the last few years a coalition is formed. the ndp dis you have said, hey, programming costs are rising. this is getting carried -- getting have hand. we have got to change these three transmission consent rules. well, my view is that retransmission is a relatively small piece of the puzzle. broadcasters probably don't get anywhere near the value for

their programming currently that i think that they deserve. the real reason why those things -- the program cost is rising is because a lot of us are crazy love sports. espn, prices go up. fox channel prices go up. there because the statute ought to be left alone. the process of to be continued. have you said that in 2014 there is an arcane law called stella they can be seen otherwise when congress goes to decide whether to extend that law which they do every five years. by the way, they change the name of every five years so it's hard to remember. it sounds like one of the

tennessee williams play, but there it is. i think that is when the whole retransmission consent situation will be challenged again. but, again, i am an advocate for it. admittedly both sides should negotiate in good faith. that is a requirement of the law, and i think they do. i think they're working out. yes, it does -- every negotiation attempts to get right down to the wire before people make decisions. so some of the cable satellite people said they would like to have inch from carries going on during the course of the debate. well, if you have in trump carries there would be no requirement on anybody making a deal and therefore there would not be any deals. so arbitration, antrum carries, those kinds of things, i think, are a subterfuge simply to say we don't want to deal. this is the dick wylie view. announcing that my friends @booktv i do have cable plants

that will agree with me on that, but that's the way i see it. one other complexity of this whole retransmission consent, situation. what are we going to do about over the top programming? and one of my talking about? on-line transmissions, which is going to occur is increasingly. and, you know, should -- are those in bpd, should they be paying retransmission consent? you know, define netflix as in the pd. diazo, the one where the commission may have all new provision kamal new proceeding and deciding who is an ndp. and in entraps -- interesting test to see that that occurs in the future. my own view is there are a lot of efforts being made now to carry broadcast programming. you have heard about buried driller or area which is not streaming, but a different

system, i think it is all to get programming without paying copyright or without paying retransmission consent. programming -- programming is expensive. hard to produce those things, and that the people have to be paid for the efforts of their labor. if they are now we won't have that kind of programming. so i think that would be bad for the country. >> let's move on telecommunications regulation the commission in recent years has been focusing more and more on broadband as opposed to traditional copper wires which networks. i assume you see this continuing on in the future. what are some of the challenges that you see the commission facing in the broad band area? >> well, i think, again, the chairman deserves a lot of credit for the emphasis, the emphasis on broadband. is obviously important. and that think it is not only important to, you know, carry a broadcast signal or carried media signals, but it is

important to our economy, said e-health, e-education, all of these things that contribute to the quality of life and to our economy. hi-speed internet access is the name of the game. and, of course, you know, we have it in the big cities. we always have it in a lot of communities. younger people have it. a lot of older people don't because they just don't -- i think they are little challenged by the technical -- the technical complexities of it, but it is going to happen, and this country just as it has happened in other civilized countries, and, indeed, the united states could even be stronger in this area. so i think the emphasis is correct. then you get into the complexities, harold, of things like, you know, carriage of programming and services and whether or not there should be rules that prevent people from

blocking certain services from discriminating against certain people and you get into the old concept of network neutrality, and you are that concept talked-about. >> a major case involving an appeal of the sec network neutrality rules. a lot of people i talk to think the commission will lose that case. not going to ask you to comment on that likelihood, but i would welcome your views in the event that the commission were to lose that appeal, what steps to you think the commission would take next? >> well, first of all, i should reveal that we are involved in an appeal. we were involved in the previous appeal in the comcast case in 2009. and basically what we're talking about is that the commission in 2005 during the bush administration, by the way, set

up for principles for network neutrality, and that is that consumers, and i will say this exactly, but consumers should have the right to have the application is their wont, the content once, the devices that they want and have competition between there broadband providers. and not have unreasonable discrimination. the commission brought a charge against comcast that they had discriminated slowing down on a local service in order to make the service for everybody available. comcast said the commission did not have a story to do that. and the court ruled with comcast and said the ancillary authority was not good enough. there was no direct statutory authority. they could not rely on ancillary authority. that happened in 2009. we represented comcast in that case. in 2010, i think, or whenever it

was, that jankowski commission change to the principles to rules, added a no blocking rule, of nondiscrimination rule, transparency rule, and those have been challenged by verizon. we represent verizon in this case. and that is the case you refer to that is going to be argued in the next few months. this same court of appeals in d.c. that ruled on the comcast case. it remains to be seen just how that will come out. i don't know, but this time the commission is saying we do have touched or authority. we have section 706 which gives the commission authority over broadband. we have other provisions. these should apply to allow us that have these networks -- non network duplication rules. excuse me. network neutrality rules. i don't know how that's going to come out. we will see.

>> okay. >> it may be that the corps will say the commission does have authority. the commission is inserting it. maybe not. >> right. >> you know, after that the commission will have to move on accordingly. >> i find it interesting to contrast the commission's network utility rules with what went on at the i t u last year. the united states was taking a very principled position. ..

both sides claim that they are for a free internet. i mean that is the interesting thing about it and the other side claims that you want to restrict the internet. and the international sphere that you referred to, a number of the countries like china, russia and some of the mideast countries want to have more government involvement in the development of the internet. the u.s.-led involvement in the internet, they're concerned about the multi-stakeholder private-sector governance of the internet which i think has led to the internet's wonders of the great development of that and i'm very much on the side of the united states on this. and by the way this is one area in which the republicans or democrats, this is the one area

that they can easily agree on. now on the other hand some republicans point to exactly the point that you make and that is there is some hypocrisy here. we are saying hey wait a minute we want a free network that on the other hand we want rules like network neutrality here domestically and we won't want to have the government involved in the international sphere. i think on the other hand some folks who support the network neutrality rules would say there is quite a difference between those two instances and that would not be a fair comparison. i probably am on the side of the import to your question saying that it would be better to have the government keeping tabs on in allowing the internet to continue to be really an amazing device that it is today, amazing force that it is. just think about it ladies and gentlemen. the internet has calm -- might

become in the last 10 or 15 years, become the universal medium for communications and entertainment and what have you and it has changed every business in the united states and it will even more in the future and i think that might not happen if you had a repressive government, which we are not going to happen the united states but if you had repressive government rules internationally i think that could impact the internet's development and it could impact our economy. i think it's a mistake and i want to commend chairman genachowski and commissioner mcdowell at the fcc for their strong efforts on this and indeed the folks on capitol hill who have been very much endorsing what the fcc has been trying to do. >> what do you see as the outcome of the internet and where do we go from here? this was an unusually contentious meeting and raised some issues that really haven't been addressed for 20 or 25

years. at a lot of different sides are claiming victory. how do you see itu going -- itu going forward internationally? what is its role with the internet? >> i was disappoindisappoin ted by the dubai conference. it was a so-called conference held in the mideast. i think the feeling was that it's not going to be a treaty coming out of it. that was the concept. there was a treaty. the united states and many of the western countries refuse to sign that treaty. i don't think that treaty by all means is that last word in this. i think it's a start of a process but the start of i think a very troubling process that we may see more government involvement in the internet and i think that is what our government leaders are warning against. both the republican side and the democrats.

>> finally, let's talk recently about the proposal for how the fcc is going to look at what will ultimately be a transition. it will, at some point in time and whether that is five years from now or 50 years from now, no one knows for sure. the fcc has requested for it to take a look at this transition. how d.c. that playing out? >> what we are really talking about is we have the public switched telephone network pstn which has served this country for 100 years or more and that it was developed basically for voice communications. all of us making telephone calls. we know today the world has changed and again for all the reasons we have been talking about for the last hour here. digital, internet, ip enabled

services are increasingly demanded by the public so therefore whether you think the changeover from the pstn to an all ip network is a good idea i am telling you here it is inevitable. it's going to happen. the only question is when it's going to happen and some people by the way say it will happen in this decade. i have heard 2018 as a possible date but nobody knows that for certain. the commission to its credit has set up a task force to look at how we make that transition and what kind of regulations do we need to ensure that rural areas, older people, poor people and people who rely a lot on the pstn are not going to be disadvantaged from those of us in different environments and i think that maybe as we want to get more service and we want to have a new ip network.

and at&t and -- has suggested there ought to be some trials to see what regulations are required because does it make sense to have the networks maintained for too long to different networks, one again developed through voice communications and another one developed through all kinds of communications and ip if you will. and so i think this is going to be a continuing issue, trying to figure out what regulations need to be changed and what kind of a hierarch he do we need and what kind of timing do we need? how do we protect the people who still rely on that pstn? at&t has pledged $14 billion to try to drive fiber optics into the 22 states which they serve. i think a combination of fiber

optics, mobile 4g and digital services generally, i think maybe we can find a way to provide the same kind of commitment that the telephone companies had and reserve all of america with an effective low-cost telephone system, telecommunication system. we can still do it in the modern age but that is going to be i think the challenge. >> with that, let me open up the floor to questions and let me remind both are on line and our c-span audience that if you have questions to submit them to add hudson institute hashtag fcc policy or hashtag future fcc and we already have some questions. see that's a mean one. [laughter]

>> i was kidding. i couldn't see it. >> you might think it's a mean question. it's from crystal. any predictions on which sitting fcc member would serve as interim chair if chairman genachowski steps down? >> one would have to bet on the senior commissioner, the senior democrat mignon clyburn but that's the president's decision and far be it to me to be able to make that decision. by the way i think both are competent and capable and i am impressed with -- at her brief time at the commission and they both do a great job. >> questions from our audience? the gentleman right here. and please identify yourself. >> mr. -- hi mr. wally -- mr. wiley. he discussed the fcc's authority in an increasingly broadband

centric world. you feel as though congress must update their communications act to ensure that the fcc can continue to perform its basic functions as networks migrate? >> here is the reality. the 1996 act which was the first major telecommunication legislation that the congress passed since the 1934 act that set up the fcc, it unfortunately, the timing of it, which has worked out for 10 years but they came along just in time when the internet was being developed so it barely mentions the internet. broadband wasn't involved in it. digital communications weren't there in the timing just wasn't right. and so yes you could say it would be good to have a new communicacommunica tions law. having said that, do i think it's going to happen? i think it's going to be very difficult to achieve.

there are so many that can interest involved so many industry interests and so in so many public interest and citizens groups. when you can't change the broadcast rules very easily, just imagine when you try to write a huge new statute that involves rock band or any of the other digital services. so i think i would foresee maybe smaller pieces of legislation. i would like to see the statute. i think that would make sense for the country but i'm not sure how soon that would happen. it's now being talked about on capitol hill, but talk is cheap i think. so we will see. >> it was 62 years between the original communications act and that 96 act. >> the 96 act was a very good effort by the way but again i think it would have been so much better 10 years later. we would have known and congress

understandably did not know about it and did not know how important internet was going to be in the rock band was feasible. >> as a footnote, having worked on the 96 act as a staffer congress actually did know about a lot of these things but some words were not put in for committee jurisdictional reasons. >> that does happens. >> the next question from our audience, we have the gentleman over here in the aisle. >> hi joel from temple strategies. as we have been talking about how things have been changing how things are regulated, do you think that the current sort of silo regulations wireline and media make sense of the world going forward and if not how should the fcc structure to handle what we are talking about >> it doesn't make sense anymore. you know you have broadcasters

regulated by the public trustees and you have telephone regulated to some extent and the cable satellite somewhere in between and get as we see in the marketplace today all of them are providing equivalent, functionally equivalent digital services. broadcasters are trying to get into the world that the telephone -- cable and telephone are competing directly which wasn't foreseen in the 1996 act as clearly as we see it today so i think we do need a provision of this. i think the fcc could do a lot of that themselves. and i would like to see that occurred. i think we just have to go in my view toward a more less regulation. i think that's the only way it works. rely more on the marketplace and yes we have to protect public safety and we have to make sure that the disadvantaged are

protected but largely speaking i think the force of the competition are going to provide a better answer for services but that's my philosophy. >> we have a question over here on this side. >> hi. i'm a grad student and an intern at verizon. my questions about the unlicensed spectrum in the broadband. you mentioned the statute limited to not more than technically necessary or technically feasible. microsoft and google requests for 28 megahertz of broadband license spectrum and their minimum requirement for some of the lte from the -- megahertz and i'm wondering how you balance the unlicensed spectrum

and the license spectrum such as smartphones and also the revenue generated from auctions. what is your take? >> i think both licensed and unlicensed operations are important. i think the fcc has already as i said earlier created the possibility of unlicensed services and i think more and services will be created through the spectrum option but the real reason it was set up of course was to give some revenue to pay for broadcasters to leave the spectrum and somebody's going to have to provide the revenue basically and once again if you are going to build wifi servicee and isn't somebody going to have to spend a lot of money to build out the systems and provide services and they are going to want to be paid for it.

that is the reality reality of weather is licensed or unlicensed. yes you go to several wifi spots and get some free services but you also pay or some services and i think that's going to be the continuation of it. so i don't think we know how that's going to work out and they think the main thing will be that the broadband can't be so broad beyond with the technical requirements might be to keep mobile wireless services away from broadcasting and to prevent interference. that is the fundamental. >> i could add a footnote. various technological and market possibility of someone bidding at auction for spectrum and then setting it up as unlicensed but having charging for access. i've had discussions with professor christopher u of the university of pennsylvania about this for this concept. we haven't seen anyone actually

being willing to bid for that. there might be for technological reasons for other reasons, but consensually someone could infect bid in auction and set up what is the equivalent of an unlicensed spectrum. >> in the back. >> hi, americans for tax reform. there are a few things following up on spectrum. you talk a lot about the broadcasting spectrum and the commercial spectrum. right now 30% of the spectrum has commercial use whereas 70% is federally used and there may be some debate as to what a shared but the federal use pretty much preempts any kind of use on the shared band. what is the strategy that the fcc can pursue in investing some of the federal agency spectrum and then also when talking about compensation, since we know that all these services across-the-board should the silo they are also competing with

each other. isn't the fcc's current interpretation of -- incorrect so when they evaluate the market they don't have all the proper aspects? >> the last part, i will take the last part. i would agree with you on that. with all due respect to the commission i think they have to look for some of these broadcasts and they look at what the competitive realities are today. the world has change remarkably and as we have talked about. on the first, say your question again. >> howell can the fcc -- [inaudible] >> difficult because sometimes the fcc for example which is set up by congress to really regulate the private use, the fcc doesn't know what the government use is in a lot of us don't know. we have to rely on ntia and the forces over there in the federal government. we know that the defense

spectrum was very important to the security of this country and so a lot of uses are unknown. i do think there has got to be more effort made to free up spectrum and to try to have the same kind of technology driven use of the spectrum which conserves the spectrum and we know it drives the private sector because there is a profit motive to that. those same kinds of incentives have to be used by the government. i think we could get a lot of government people that will tell you that they understand we have got to really employ spectrum efficiently just as we do in the private sector. but if you read a lot of the comments coming out of ntia it's about shared spectrum and whether that's going to really be effective i think is a question. you are shaking your head no and i might be in some agreement with that. [inaudible]

>> in any case be at the the combination of shared or combination of reallocation, i think the government is going to have to try to play by the same kinds of rules that the private sector is forced to play because of the economy, economic limits. >> we have another question from twitter. this one comes from tech journalists john adger 10. a friend. how long can the fcc put off the mvpd decision? >> well i think i think they are going to have to have a major proceeding. i don't think we can decide on the basis of just the complaint. that big of the question of who is in mvpd. it nppd's are required to pay consent to broadcasters. i don't think they can decide that in a single complaint and against a single company.

i think it's a very important issue and why so very important issue cracks because so much programming is going to be developed over the internet. i was just talking at lunch with you about netflix paying $100 million for the house of cards programming. here is a whole new competitive force that out that the networks for that program both mvpd and broadcast networks presumably. i don't know the details of the deal but it's obvious that there's a new force out there and over-the-top on line programming and programming is going to be increasingly important and one of the copyright rules to that kind of the service be it stream toward be it brought by ariel through small antenna and dvr hooked to the internet, office things are going to have to be reviewed by the commission. that's going to be a big challenge for this chairman for

the next chairman. >> we have time for one or maybe two more questions from our audience. >> as pleased to say it i have made it all perfectly clear, right? [laughter] >> one last tough one. >> biscuits to, you have observed the structure of the commission over the years dealing with a wide range of issues. do you think the current five-member structure in an agency is working well or do you think there are some issues that might be better off -- the wanat. >> i still like the combination of the fcc dealing with the private sector use of the spectrum and ntia and its

cohorts dealing with the government side. if you are going to have the fcc if i were chairman i might have thought -- but i still like the ability to get in and get a variety of viewpoints brought to it and then have that bipartisanship to it and deal with the private sector. so i think the fcc system is working. i think the biggest problem is the speed of service and i think they commission's next leadershileadershi p is going to have to look at that as a way to get things done. the reason why take so long though is two things, the complexity of the issues today and the multiple interests that interact with those issues, so it's just very hard for the fcc to make a decision rapidly but i think it's got to try. >> and with that this concludes

this session of the center for the economics of the internet the series at the hudson institute. please join us again on watch seven. at noon we will have the commissioner of the federal communications that he will come >> to us about issues before the commission. with that, please join me in thanking richard wiley for giving us an extraordinary presentation today. thank you very much. [applause] >> i have a standing policy when i talk about china. china's not an enemy of the united states. there is no good reason for china to become a enemy of the

united states. to keep the relationship competitive. occasionally may be confrontational, never have to get to the level of conflict, all right? now that said, i already told you about chinese espionage and more broadly chinese behavior is very very disturbing and should not be allowed to stand. by the way the president use the same taxonomy that you and i just did. there is and has been as danger and then there's a destructive danger appears for the defense secretary leon panetta said we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. to believe that? c. i don't choose to use that phrase. there are cyber dangers and i should have made that clear already, how much concerned about them i am. cyber pearl harbor is too easy. let me give you the dialogue i hear. here. we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor.

why? why hasn't happened? >> or what do we do about it? >> i want to answer the question why. i don't have a good answer so i don't say cyber pearl harbor. i say there are great dangers out there and i fear the chinese presence on these networks. it's a matter of great concern and we have to do something about it. now if you want to talk about something? what can we do? number one the advice my dad gave me when i came home at nine years of age after losing a fight. quit whining, act like a man and defend yourself. we can be more robust in defending our network. that is one. we can make a much more difficult for others to access things that we consider to be of value to us. secondly, i would suggest, and you saw that in "the new york times" piece today, that we make chinese cyber behavior part of

the overall portfolio of our relationship with the people's republic. again not calling it an enemy but i'm saying you have to pattern of behavior in this one line that is so disturbing for us that if that pattern continues we should make it very clear to the chinese that that will begin to affect all of this. >> what does that mean? it would have to be prepared to follow on -- follow through on it. they are holding a trillion dollars with regard to. >> i don't mean to be blasé about this but that makes them as a dependent on us as we are on them so that's a wash. >> so they keep doing it, what's a consequence of xp the consequences china to pence on us for the market. >> we stop buying their televisions in their iphones? do you think? are you going to stop buying their iphones? >> start pricing it out. they design with the u.s. company that went out of

business last year pledged what they used to make. why should we allow them to export back to the united states? why should we allow the chinese were participatory to come to united states? there are lots of things, there are lots of ways we can make this relationship less comfortable to them. this is important and i think you and i agree that it is and you have to start taking some actions. are they -- for us? no but yes my view. >> you can see this entire discussion with former cia director michael hayden on our web site, c-span.org.

>> the communism of china is coming in to name only these daisies and preserves the power of the members of the communist party but they basically threw ideology aside when deng xiaoping opened the country up now become a capitalist thing. in china they talk at great length about marxist-leninist them etc. but as i said it's all about preserving the party's power economically as the country continues to grow because they threw aside the most communism and long time ago. ..

! thank you. professor richard fallon is a professor of constitutional law at harvard law school, graduated

gill university and yell law school. he earned a b.a. degree in philosophy, politics and economics from oxford university, where he is a rhodes scholar. fallon served to justice lewis f. powell of the united states supreme court and he has written extensively about constitutional law and federal courts. he's the author several books including the dynamic constitution implements of the constitution. we are grateful to him for participating in this event. andrew koppelman is professor of law and professor of political science at northwestern university. he was the dispatcher's degree from the university of chicago and jd and phd from the alaska. his scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of law and political philosophy. he's the author of "defending american religious neutrality", same, different state, the gay questioning law and more than 80

articles and books and scholarly journals. sherif girgis is a phd student and a jd candidate at you about school. after crash rating phi beta kappa and summa cum laude and at the extent the faith philosophy as well as the dante society obtained moral political on a rhodes scholar. he's the author of the recent book, "what is marriage?" described as the most forgettable ever written. we are grateful for participating in this event. sherif. >> thank you so much for the introduction. thanks everyone for coming in a special thanks to professor coppell man. i've had the pleasure speaking on a panel with him before and i not only respect his work a

great deal, but his intellectual integrity and he's willing to expand and the assumptions behind views that a lot of people are want to treat as dogma and not something adderall. and to be moderated by professor fallon, who spoke i have to refer homer tonight is the real and very much an honor. because the discussion we had today is one that's not often had in the way were having that, if i would use all to start by saying what i'm not going to say. it's very easy to hear what we assume is associated with a view rather than its favor. a quick summary is that i'm not arguing for morality or research and or tradition. none of my arguments presuppose anything about the moral status as gay relationships. there's other relationships that don't get recognized, so that can't be a decisive factor.

they don't rely on particular religious tradition. something like that you are going defend today has been common to religions across time in many cultures and so we was don't want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating theology is rather than the other way round and it's not an argument from tradition. i'm not arguing because it's been this way it always should be. another thing is my argument can't be answered by appeals to the quality. we usually think that is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict the pool of people eligible to marry. it is true about fake marriage is a good income should be available on an equal basis and you get right to same-sex marriage from there. i think this debate is about a prior question. it's a debate about what

marriage is and why the state is involved in the first place, which of course has implication for which unions get recognized as marriages. my proposal is the main mission of marriage and support for same-sex marriage is mistaken and a strong about what marriage is. another is he can't explain much less controversial features that we all agree that marriage apart from other bonds. second, enshrining that different vision of marriage and the law and overtime in our public opinion in culture impact is would be harmful for the common good and particularly the common good tickets is involved in the first place and invited both of those things, the mainstream argument for same-sex marriage has lots of internal contradictions rarely examined and create just the kind of problems for the same-sex marriage you that most

proponents think might be wise in of justice. so what establish and? think about it by asking if we recognize the relationship of any two people in love, but not other forms of relationships, with the scissors apart, what it is an extreme than a month who can get married in new york different from two brothers who never stopped living together and have nobody would call mary. we think of it that way, you see what that's marriage apart is an emotional union or intensity or priority. my claim is that they should not marriage collapses distinction the broader companionship. they can't explain any of the less controversial features to both probably still agree that marriage apart. for example, most of us think unlike other forms of friendship to get off the ground cumin

marriage has to be pledged to permanence. but if what sets it apart is that kind of emotional union or intensity or regard, there's no reason the principle none other than irrational attachment to tradition should be pledged to permanence as opposed to remaining together as long as that union and emotional union lasts. or sexual exclusivity. it fosters emotional union and some degree of agreed-upon sexual outlasts what foster reporter, so that to is what make the marriage would efs contain jan. the same thing true of the idea of marriage as the union of two people. if emotional union is what makes a marriage, it's true to man can have that at the same is true. were not talking about polygamy,

that the idea of polyamory, plural marriage. "newsweek" tells us there's 500,000 polyamorous relationships in the u.s. different gender distributions to make the lights of the same-sex marriage argument is no relevant depiction between those and tonight i'm logged. both have what makes a marriage. even the idea that is the least controversial becomes harder to explain. if all that sex contributes to marriage is a certain pastern of emotional attachment vulnerability in tenderness in the lake, it's hard to see why sex is crucial depending on temperamental artiste at the other forms of activities that oster intimacy. so that is some other reason this vision of marriage gets marriage wrong. it misunderstands the human good

we are after. you might ask at that point what difference they make, why it's not just this vision of marriage and the law. to get a handle on that question, you have to first ask why we recognize marriage at all, which is a puzzling thing. usually the less personal relationship, the more the states involved. it regulates business partnerships, but not so much friendship speared by marriage? by a personally valuable blog we call marriage in history is a useful juristic. we have almost every society left a trace of itself with men and women because those relationships on produced new human beings are required years of commitment from their parents on the whole that that's the best scenario in order to reach

physical and psychological and emotional maturity in every aspect of the common good, every institution of civil society, the economy itself in the state itself depends on that kind of maturity but can't themselves provide a facility in tact commitment of the mother and father who brought the child. that's against the state involved in marriage. it's a social need to promote stabilizing norms in very stabilizing norms undermined in principle and suggest over time and practice as we internalize the idea that marriage is just companionship, that it has no more internal requirements and companionship does, which again is a very broad category. and note what this highlights. they suggest that is the norm of sexual complementarity is just a

kind of emotional or traditionalist attachment, a holdover, so is exclusivity and monogamy. why do i say that? often people say we can cross those bridges or jump off those bridges when we get there. we don't have to worry about polyamorous relationships and so on. but the logic of their position doesn't allow that answer because the logic of their position is what makes marriage and emotional units are witchery to require sexual monteverdi, but by the same token is equally arbitrary for permanence and a presumptive way. this isn't just a point that conservatives make. it's an argument about the logic of video, but it's one that's increasingly made by the leaders of the movement for same-sex

marriage. dan savage a sympathetic "new york times" magazine profile as soon talking about how the norm of sexual exclusivity is arbitrary in some cases complementarity. you have over 300 academics and activists to identify a set of three in the year 2006, signing a document saying justice requires recognizing not just same-sex relationships, but multiple partner unions, nonsexual unions and so on. they agreed increasingly and i can cite many other people that if it is arbitrary, so are all these other norms. they and i only disagree on whether disentangling those and the institution we promote as a good thing or very bad. at this stage you might ask yourself, what is the alternative? with the other vision of a marriage that explains the other

features? vesely tried to sketch at some length in the book, "what is marriage?." but i can give a summary just to give a sense of that investigation you might recognize reflected in judeo christian religion but also in the muslim tradition and not just in the monotheistic religions, but in the work of someone like condi and not just in western and eastern religions or in the can of months,, mom of many faces of ancient greek and roman law and the fingers of ancient greece and love like socrates, aristotle, people had no connection to judaism or christianity. that makes it worth listening to at least. the winner would summarize that we would do in the book is on this vision, marriage is a comprehensive law, that in all the ways that make it community

at all, it's comprehensive. any form of community is made by union apart nurse with respect to certain good in the context of a commitment. it's common action, activity tours, and action in those respects, marriage is comprehensive. at the levels that united, not just heart and mind, but heart, mind and body. bodily union means what it means within an individual. the price of my body or yours are one and actively coordinated towards a single one of the income in that remarkable unity is possible between two people, but only in the sexual act that unites a man and woman were bodies are coordinated towards a single reproduction of a whole that encompasses them both. it's comprehensive and good to

enrich or fulfill the relationship. it is sent by experience. a scholarly community by the pursuit of knowledge, that marriage is so filled by bearing and rearing of children and therefore in some sense all the goods human beings have the subject. derek and the best way to make sense of that is on the traditional view. a man and women feel their marital love by the act that makes new life and so the relationship the act fulfills would be extended and fulfilled by rearing children and sharing of life that calls for end is comprehensive in the dimensions of partners united and the goods they are united around calls for comprehensive commitment, permanent and exclusive. this is the vision of marriage i think make sense. lots of features that make no sense on the other view, only to

record a scum of idea marriage has any inherent in stable connection to family life and inherently cause for permanence in the passivity apart from the object of taste or preference. the idea the state has an interest that i was supposed to deep emotional bonds are personally both of us and make sense of these cross-cultural and millennial traditions. replacing that as an emotional union not only undermines and makes them impossible to explain, but over time makes them impossible to enforce and that in turn would hurt every common good we recognized marriage in the first place to serve. [applause]

>> okay, for better or for worse, same-sex marriage is one of the most successful social movements in american history. it claims what outside the realm of political taxability as recently as the early 1990s and now was probably inevitable and succeeded largely because opponents have been so inarticulate and this is a crucial part, they've remarkably failed to pass on these two children. so my guess is i'm not going to ask for a show of hands as usual in the room is predisposed to agree with me and who in the room was predisposed to agree with sherif because it would be friendly. according to the gallup poll, 46% of americans oppose same-sex marriage. 53% in favor and has dabbled in

only 15 years, but there's a huge generational divide. among people 18 to 29 years old, 73% support same-sex marriage and only 39% of those 65 or older support same-sex marriage and the result is a massive political shift. barack obama's first democratic president to support same-sex marriage and also the last democratic president to oppose. that's never going to happen again. the republicans are painfully beginning to do likewise. so the book bacher hanford and his co-authors have written, "what is marriage?" is an important book. it's a philosophical argument, the remarkably fast read. it's fun to read and has statements against the case for same-sex marriage.

some people who have argued against same-sex marriage because of its baleful consequences have a terrible effect on heterosexual families. they are parasitic on deeper philosophical claims premised on going to focus on this deeper philosophical claims. the central claim, the work he is offering comes under the new natural law theory developed for some decades by john stennis, robert george of princeton, one of the co-authors of the book and they argue their same universal human goods, cross culturally goods. life, health, knowledge, friendship. i agree about this. their claim is marriage is such a cross culturally universal

good it is a distinctive kind of bond with its own value and structure which the state did not invent it has no power to redefine and is good. sherif only spent a minute, but it arises to the bodily union only a man on woman can achieve. the challenge has always meant to explain intrinsic difference is between same-sex and opposite couples. the union of opposite couples have intelligible sense that they can't possibly participate. i'll just click and read from the new book. man and woman, when they unite not only come coordinate towards a common ideological of the whole they formed to gather and this is something a same-sex couple can't accomplish.

there's no bodily code or function towards which their bodies can coordinate in order for biologically and do occur they have to be coordinated towards something and inhuman ids there's only one such biological and. i'm not sure this is true. some things are things you can do with your body is a biological function. singing, for example, something you have to have your body do. so i'm not sure the chorus doesn't achieve bodily union in the sense they have in mind. now i central objection is this argument about bodily coronation can't explain why the line is drawn in the way they've drawn that so that heterosexual couples who know themselves to be infertile nonetheless are somehow within the circle. a sterile person's are no more

than an unloaded gun for shooting, so it's not clear to me even if you thought there is something intrinsically wonderful about heterosexual union by the winds would be drawn in the way they've drawn it. so then we get into extended argument, which are addressed to some extent in their book and treatments of my objections are scrupulously fair and accurate. they claim that even in that case the body is coordinated towards an end. went on a couple, when a man and woman procreate, they do not know on that occasion there's going to be a fertile egg, the meaning of what they do now can't depend on what happens later and they broke in gun is still a god.

ordinate towards a glenn and that's not true of a pilot done playing. so the infertile couple unites with one another, she's that good of unity so the argument goes in the same way that the couple who actually fertilized a baby succeed in doing. there is a problem when one argues about good. ultimately you need a take on the part of the audience. the audience has to be persuaded that they argued for is in fact good and you've got to see it. if i were trying to argue about the good of friendship, sherif and i agree this is something cross culturally good. but if it's going to persuade someone who had never had many friends and couldn't understand the point is very tricky to get the person to see what were talking about if they're

insensitive to themselves. i don't have to report my own limitations here. whatever the good the infertile heterosexual couples perceived as an thing that's got anything to do with the creation of babies. they argue the infertile couples unions is a valuable part of a valuable hole, but i don't see what value would be in deliberately assembling and irreparably broken gun. in no way related to the function of shooting. baby want to do it to put in a museum or something like that, but it doesn't have the goodness of this particular unity is a reason for action, so it's a real question, sherif, i want you to clarify this for me. the argument curiously fails to appreciate certain kinds of reproductive coordination. there's a few dismissive lines

about artificial reproduction in the book, but it's not clear why couple engaged in artificial reproduction is not also coordinating towards the bodily good of reproduction. there are other aspects of marriage that are mysterious. so they say their view can account for monogamy. being are again ugly united as one flash, spouses should have by a commitment exclusive and life of unity that parts of the healthier to party have by nature. i think this is file, but it doesn't follow biological unity. one person can coordinate bodily with a lot of feathers. if you study history, it's been done. again, think of a chorus. also people cord needing bodily.

now the authors claim him as their understanding marriage is widely shared, social parameters will diminish her husbands to stay with wives and children are men and women to marry before having children because only their understanding of marital stability and this is the harm of same-sex marriage. i'll read from the book again as more people observed the new lossless and marriage is fundamentally about emotion, marriages will increasingly take on emotions too radical and constancy. in fact, take a look at the top economic quartet of americans do we know that's the groups most likely to endorse same-sex marriage another reason would be unfair to ask for a show of hands. this is harvard law school. within that quartile, rates of non-marital birth and divorce i basically what they were during the 1950s. you guys are likely to stay

married. those people evidently perceive a reason to control emotions to radical inconstancy, which is not the reason to reject same-sex marriage because it's the same population who stays together. i'm an example of this myself. my wife and i've been together for decades. just a matter of autobiography the third shot was assigned a relationship is getting serious. i also think the account of marriage in the book is so novel and esoteric that it's hard to believe it has any effect at all ordinary people's behavior. most of you in the audience are still trying to get it. they said a few ancient philosophers who held ideas by the consistently tears, but i don't think you're going to find bodily usenet talk and

philosophy isn't about conclusions. it's about arguments. so this really is a very novel view. let me say something about the alternative you were precisely the idea here is the alternative view and not at the inside edge. i love dan savage, but they don't agree with everything he says. they claim marriage has a nice sense and is essentially an emotional union by whatever sexual activity partners find agreeable. the logic of that view is there are no principal boundaries to marriage, so it has to seep into polygamist groups and celebrants to share household such as brothers living together. they are right about the rivals, weaknesses of rival essentialism. the most attractive is to say marriage is not essentially anything. it's a historical cultural

formation. it would not have arisen were it not the case human beings reproduce and that's how it came to arise. but it doesn't have any sense. there are irregularities that to influence the way married people behave, so it is handy to know 99% of heterosexual couples expect exclusivity in their marriage and violations across lots of cultures. it's a good thing for you to know. keep that in mind. the marriage might be practiced dish can be modified freely as human needs evolve. so the fundamental difficulty in the claim i think is the short distance from premise to conclusion. the union of the married heterosexual couple is uniquely good because the union is

uniquely good. now, this raw intuition comes decorated with a complex apparatus, but the apparatus doesn't do any work. i think their book is a public service. i'm grateful this book is out there precisely because this is a good fewer and fewer americans shared and a lot of people find unintelligible and i think it's good for the country or people to understand fellow citizens have right now a lot of fellow citizen are being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world and its good to understand what fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a giant worldview. it's unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agreed the claim won't have much impact on its contemporary audience, but does have value in just

advancing our understanding of the landscape of argument today prefer that we should be grateful to them and will also be of enormous value to historians. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank both of the participants in this debate for giving these stimulating presentations. i've heard in a number of people shout at each other about these issues over the years, but i've seldom heard a really valuable reasons discussion before an audience such as this, so i think we should all be grateful to them. i want to give you a chance to answer, andy, sherif, but let me build on something he said because it captures the question i was going to ask. he began by saying your argument

was not going to be a moral argument. but if i understood you correctly you were going to explain what they might encode as the conceptual logic of the concept of marriage a right and he referred to the end as what is essential to marriage. so i'm a little puzzled how that argument can be made without it being a moral argument. so for example, suppose i say i know a married homosexual couple who are recognized by this state and have all the privileges within the state of massachusetts. one possibility to purely conceptual view would be the view to the effect that when i say that, i echo the state of massachusetts in making a

mistake there but i have said couldn't true. it is at this state of massachusetts issued dog licenses to cat. but the issuance of a dog license to a cat can't change a cat into a dog. a cat is something, a dog you something. but andy's point when he refers to as sense is that marriage isn't like that. in order to determine what ought not to count as marriage, we have to make moral judgments. so am i correct in not? and if i am correct, do you want to take this opportunity to be more straightforward about the precise moral argument you're urging us. >> what i began with was the argument did not depend on saint

same-sex relationships were immoral and the simple reason is we don't think marriage law is supposed to include other valuable relationships. we are on countless relationships are recognized as marriage and no one thinks of them just for them to be recognized. it is moral in the sense it's talking about a human good that the state is tracking and has reasons to track, but not in the sense that rely on a claim about immorality of same-sex relationships or any other relationship. beneath a little bit about the idea that there is something to marriage cross culturally. i've heard often it comes up a frequent claim that it just can't possibly have a nice sense and i heard that from professor koppelman in the last time we spoke together. i think there's arguments for the other side of the question.

see mind at the most general level think there's just something mysterious about requirements of human goods we ourselves choose. that would quickly lead to a deep general moral relativism to be impossible to explain human rights come explain the basis of justice so often spoke against me, to explain any kind of normative claim they make. you might say it's more specific than that. the problem is not that there can't be a jet of criteria for anything, but just for a social institution like marriage. but andy koppelman himself has contradict this idea in the discussion. he's agreed to most of us would agree that friendship, for example, various cross culturally, that there is human good there, our way of driving you can't capture unless your bond to someone else has certain features and is nothing more

mysterious than not that i'm also claiming about marriage. and in light of that good, certain requirements arise like loyalty in the case of friendship and sexual exclusivity in marriage is not mysterious. the reason i cited these other ancient thinkers is to think of people who were motivated by religion. many of them weren't highly homoerotic cultures that have nothing against same-sex relationships on a moral matter. they also were at a time place and the idea of orientation we have a sticky not a class of human beings just didn't exist. it was an bigotry, the religion, was neighboring property because they were taken reading of dignity of the human good and not what the law should be in the first place. what was that? they must've had an insight into the structure of marriage just as friendship.

a final point about that question is most of you are probably committed to the use that entail the same thing, that there is an objective standard of what marriage is. if marriage is whatever the majority said it was, they would be no independent standard for saying that a marriage law was unjust, that it unjustly excluded some relationships that are true marriage. you might say there's a cluster of social good in this instrument called marriage law might serve in those goods evolve over time and therefore so can irish law. but when i press the question again which i press against lots of people in venues never heard a good answer to. if you give me a good answer all go home and retractable book on facebook in an hour. it is the question -- [laughter] >> this is really great.

>> will make this right here. that's what they say on the sunday morning talk shows. let's take one simple example. the three men a month, one sympathetic profile in new york magazine of a three-person couple lived together, and live, share the burdens and benefits of domestic life against an indefinite horizon. they don't want the relationship stigmatized. they want to be coerced to each other's good if one of them dies. they think a quality requires not excluding non-kind of relationship they identify most of lying to them from general recognition because of the law. if there's no idea what marriage is, this is viable for them just on a marriage, the only thing you can say against it is a must

have some social cost. a social cost so great that it justifies violating what is otherwise a basic right. after all basic rights usually trump great social cost. what could that be? personnel answer in the years my colleagues and i have been making this kind of challenge to people and the reason they make it as it draws people to the point that there's a structure to marriage and the legacy structure to friendship and it's worth keeping those clear, even as non-friendship interactions or nonmarital friendships can themselves also have a different separate value. one more thing by way of response to some of professor koppelman's points. if you take any difficult moral issue and drill down to bedrock,

though, but complexity of the arguments won't sound routine and will be difficult. the law has to take a position on who's the person. if you look at the literature on person had whether you're a singer or anything in between, difficult, dense, complex. that doesn't mean people don't have a rest grasp of the concept and that our lot in common good itself can't depend on getting the concept right. for millennia, no one has seriously question the idea complementarity is idea complementarity is part of the structure of marriage and no one has seriously question social regulation of this good link social recognition of% is crucial for the common good. the fact we drill down and come up with arguments that sound novel doesn't mean they don't try to make sense and succeed in

making sense at a rough level people at some level understand. if you think romantic love is fulfilled in marriage and what romantic love seeks his total union or if you think it inherently cause for permanent exclusivity per se rule involves sexual union, the challenge of the book in the first chapter is to explain those facts which are widely recognized without something like our view. later chapters show you something like our view does explain them in some level of generality was shared by lots of people whose views you can't explain they bigotry or policy requirements or religion. i'm afraid it's too easy to say it's not routine. because this challenge repos has never been matched on the other

side, there aren't equally articulate views of what marriage is such that it could be possibly between two men, but not three or whatever else. the challenge could be to write the opposite the diamond compared damning intuitions and the degree that history of medical and social practice and i'm pretty confident would do well in that case. >> i'm going to try to be quick because i want time for some questions. so what can i say about them? if the institutional as possible to be socially construct is in for the institution to have roles and for the institution to be an object of concern about justice. think about the game of chess come as something that evolves over time i'm pretty sure it came last because it's so odd compared with the rest of it. at some point to change the

18th that way and somebody propose today as we let the queen moves like the night isn't going to get resolved by principle. it's going to be resolved by the question in terms of the goods internal, while we improve it by changing it in this way are not and that seems to be the way in which to have the conversation. the last thing i'll say is of course we can still have a question about justice, even if the institution is socially constructed. imagine a law that says it's illegal for a black person in my person to play chess together. of course that can be object day. >> let me put one question to you, andy. sherif makes the charge that if you want to defend a vision of marriage that includes same-sex couples, you've got to give some account of what the absence of

marriage is in the prevailing understanding in the part of supporters of the same-sex marriage is that the essence of marriage is emotional union. do you agree with that? >> now, the claimant in making this not everything has an eye since. they can talk about proposals to change it. i like the game of chess with the night and i would miss it if it was on. this is not an argument. >> in what sense is this an improvement in the concept of marriage society is operated if marriage is now understood that encompasses same-sex couples? >> and make a lot of people better off. >> i think again if you zoom in on the question of whether to give a particular household a particular benefit, the answer is there's always a reason to do

it and give any particular person a tax break or increase social status and so on and so forth. that's not the question. the question is what are the competing pros and cons and in our hearts and minds in this one or another vision of what marriage is. it's very value socially or otherwise to preserving certain norms as constituting marriage as opposed to other forms of valuable relationships. the best recent example of the implications has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. when i was busy gestating in the 80s, people were arguing no divorce is a win-win. the relationship is the height of a conflict. they want to get out of it anyway. nobody has a happy marriage will avail themselves, so it's only

benefit for everybody. and now the data is in a generation later and that is a very questionable thing. you have increasing liberals well as conservatives saying no divorce didn't make it easier for high conflict marriages to make up, they changed what people thought there again in two and understandings of stability and security of marriage and made them less likely to stick with it through medium level conflicts, which studies suggest is over, bowled into the greatest spouses and children and the casualties and are not just present themselves emotionally, financially or otherwise, but to some significant and measurable extent were chosen. so the question we have to take at the level proposed as a policy question and say what are the implications for the future and future marriages in particular in in get involved in regulating at all of any proposed change.

>> could you be more specific about what are the harms you see considering to? >> sure. basically the state send a couple different messages when it recognizes same-sex unions in all important ways. one of them again is what makes a marriage different from other bombs essentially a social convention is a certain kind of emotional union. the second thing was his mothers and fathers are replaceable for the purposes of parenting and its bigotry to suggest otherwise. just sticking with those two things you see a couple different harms. one is the more people internalize that, the lower internal motivations will be in the social encouragement or pressure if you put it negatively will be for example a couple to stay together when the emotion wanes or wanderers, when

they have been from their use the idea of the mother doesn't contribute anything distinct as to the family with children upbringing and so on. there's other kinds of harms. the ones others never talk about. in the book to give you a sense if you define marriage by its two career intensity of the fact that the union, you are suggesting what is not marriage is simply life and as a result of that, people who are unmarried or stay unmarried for whatever reason will find it harder to find deep emotional fulfillment because it will be socially less acceptable to find deep emotional fulfillment outside of marriage now that marriage is defined by being simply the endpoint of the spectrum of closeness to another

person and this is not again something i'm making now. you have seen and recent literature about this, including a near times in the book we cite atlantic writers and bloggers to make the same point are not with us on marriage but draw the same connection. there's lots of ramifications of blurring the distinction between the marital form of community with someone else and companionship are generally. >> to make sure and make sure indebtedness i hope you manage your head, the claim is children future row generations will be worse off than lots of other people will be worse of because they will fight harder than they would if we continue with the traditional definition of marriage to find close enduring emotional connection. >> outside of marriage, yes and for the children yass. every aspect of the public good

depends on how the next generation would be hurt as well with limited government and many other aspects. >> what's giving you one last reply. were eager to questions, but we are insistent you go to the microphone. so would someone go to their microphone? there is one might say and ask a. >> come on. you know you want to. >> by name is david you thank you for taking the time to come out. so when i listen to your speech, i'm a little confused on the notion marriage has to have an accent. i supposed to be marriage is more a social recognition of relationship and also carries legal benefits. and so you could limit to

complement terry of penis and vagina at least in the aspect polyamorous relationship seems a little more objectively easy to reject for example the legal benefits conferred on marriage. could you speak more about why couples who don't choose to have sex or be exclusive or fertile or even if a man and a woman who don't have the requisite should be allowed to marry while a homosexual couple shouldn't have the recognition of the relationship. >> this reminds me of something professor koppelman said as well. one is implicitly you can't possibly have captured a valuable category here. it's just about the equipment.

the point i want to make about that is you can do this to any of you. i can turn around and say if you only want to recognize relationships, you think there's something special about climax hennessy spammer here i would've used a different word. it undermines the value proponents about using various and the question is not that, but whether there is an accurate description highlight distinctive value. we didn't just say heterosexual monogamous union. would've given you a genuine account. comprehensive union including bodily union we show no only the union that a man can form. it is a line that goes somewhere. i may say more specifically to your question i think it is easiest -- you say polyamory is more easy to answer objectively.

you think this is an abusive marriage recognition, which is a restatement of the idea of polyamory is that marriage, which it is like me saying it's just a fact. the complementarity is crucial. none of you would accept that as an argument. it would just be restatement of the position. there's still a lot of thinking to do on not end when they do come you might just ask why the state is involved in the first place. if you don't think there's a human good track here with an objection structure. if you just think it is a matter when people live together they have certain practical needs, which is another strand i hear what you're asking. i can agree with you. a lot of the things most often mentioned i agree people should have the right to access living together, but there's no reason i should be limited to sexual relationships. two brothers who live together indefinitely should have those

benefits as well. so wouldn't require redefining marriage in particular to grant them an effect would be unjust to do it through that means because it would be too limited. if you don't believe in the i.d. america's objective criteria, just ask why this is involved in the first place and that will make progress -- that's another way of getting at what we think it would have to converge at least for something like. >> andy, why not you say something in response while they look for another hero to step forward to ask a question when andy is done. >> or why the state is in marriage at all. >> certainly there's really two reasons. one of them, i will call at the hammersmith reason, the people

are in these relationships. these relationships have public effect. they transact the thoughts of others and it facilitates transaction costs for everybody to know what these relationships are in between the parties to note these relationships are. so in a sense it's like a lot of business corporations or the law of property, the one-size-fits-all set the right dose that a lot of people. part of the claimants regard households, children of the same reasons for wanting this legal recognition. the otherwise have some thing that has been barely mentioned today, which is a long discrimination against gay people and excluding couples which look an awful lot like heterosexual married couples from this institution partakes of that pattern of stigma and discrimination that we are trying to move away from.

and this is a way of moving away from it. >> there is another questionnaire. >> you'll get to respond because that's essentially my question. >> i know it takes a lot of courage in the circle you run into say the things you believe. i don't agree with you, but i respect that courage. the question is we are all underground at the about law school who can follow your argument. i don't think it's that complicated. if you look at society, we can acknowledge either complicit or subconsciously people are in tune with philosophical points, they don't rationalize it that way. we live in a society where u.k. study suggests homosexual are less depressed, which is not true. three years ago the school district in minnesota was struck inr mess and tragic scandal were nine students killed themselves,

around five perhaps for religions related to perceived sexuality or actual sexuality. marriage? the philosophical points are trying to make about it. symbolically a lot of people are against gay marriage because they're against gay relationships and that bias affects all these children and the children of gay couples. do you really think of not context however ballot outweighs that broad societal symbolic perception and the ability to transform a marriage perhaps erase anti-gay bias? >> thank you for the question. the first thing is one big implicit in your argument is the middle point on this spectrum is the one that's really difficult. if more people or something like the view of marriage is oriented

to say my life in a particular way, the less people would infer from it anti-gay anything. the failure to recognize same-sex relationships would not be predicated on the idea they're less worthy and different forms of relationships. it's not any more of an insult to not recognize them then best friendships or something like that. that could cut either way. if you're going to support this view, don't stop there, but make sure there's more enshrining the general view of marriage and it's very much my own position. i don't think make sense to stop here. i think this is in order to regain a foothold to rebuild the marriage culture. the second thing as i understand the appeal of redefining marriage as a way of fighting anti-gay bias, but it makes the

blunt instrument. using marriage law as an instrument of inclusion, signal of approval or normality would then only further drive into the margins of society people who for whatever reason including personal or choice or if they identify as a don't get married. so the answer to bowling is to affirm the equal dignity of every human being and while there may be some marginal benefit of redefining marriage to do that, to accomplish that worthy purpose, not only would it have collateral types and talking about, but its bluntness has an instrument for that purpose would have bad unintended effects. >> so on behalf of all of us in this room, i am sure i want to take this opportunity to thank the two participants in this i